[Moderator’s note: Split fromanother thread (link) ]
Only to the extent that you’re not being dishonest. That doesn’t address the question whether it’s bad for you and thus immoral on other grounds.
How would it be bad for you if it had been discussed with the person it would be affecting besides yourself?
I cannot fathom how sex with another can be harmful. Perhaps you can illustrate what you are meaning by “bad for you”.
So you think sex, acontextually, is good for you?
So you think sex, acontextually, is good for you?
I’m sorry if I’m ignorant but what does acontextually mean?
I wasn’t aware it was a word.
Do you mean a sex without meaning?
I use acontextually to mean without regard to context, meaning that there is no context for which sex could be harmful to you. Is this your position?
I use acontextually to mean without regard to context, meaning that there is no context for which sex could be harmful to you. Is this your position?
The act of sex is neutral. Neither good nor bad.
The hell it is.
The hell it is.
I’d like to discuss this further, care to elaborate?
Well, since it’s your position that’s in question, perhaps first you can describe what you understand sex to be. In particular, please describe what you think is the point of sex, what you think is its purpose (forgetting for the time being procreation).
Well, since it’s your position that’s in question, perhaps first you can describe what you understand sex to be. In particular, please describe what you think is the point of sex, what you think is its purpose (forgetting for the time being procreation).
Sex is an action. How can you assign purpose to a simple action? It will be different for each person. The action of sex is nuetral.
There a million things that we as individuals attach to sex.
However I don’t see how my position is really in question. As I previously answered I believe you can’t make the action of sex itself positive or negative. You seem to think differently and I’d just like to understand how you do so.
I’d like to discuss this further, care to elaborate?
You didn’t answer his original question. Do you or do you not believe that there exist contexts in which sex could be harmful? (leaving aside STD’s and such)
You didn’t answer his original question. Do you or do you not believe that there exist contexts in which sex could be harmful? (leaving aside STD’s and such)
Sex is a action I believe it is nuetral.
I believe the feeling/emotions or other baggage we attach to sex can be harmful or beneficial but that is another issue entirely.
Farrier, you seem to think it rather trivial that “sex is neutral,” without explaining what this neutrality is or what you view as the purpose of sex. Neutral based on what standard? Neutral how? Neutral, to me, implies amorality, the “a” in front of this term (as in front of contextual in acontexual) meaning the lack thereof. That is, you seem to think that sex is a form of action that lacks consequences that are either for or against a person’s life. You seem to think it trivial that there is such a thing as “neutral actions.” I’m baffled by this position because, you see, I view all acts as either for or against one’s life, from the most trivial of all acts to the most complex; from the way I sit in my chair while typing this post, to the way I express myself to the people whom are dear to me, all these things have consequences. Perhaps you think there is no difference between living organisms and inanimate matter? Perhaps you do not understand that the existence of living organisms is contingent upon self-generated, self-sustained action? Perhaps the whole concept of life vs. death alludes you? So, care to elaborate on your theory of “neutral actions?”
Farrier, you seem to think it rather trivial that “sex is neutral,” without explaining what this neutrality is or what you view as the purpose of sex. Neutral based on what standard? Neutral how? Neutral, to me, implies amorality, the “a” in front of this term (as in front of contextual in acontexual) meaning the lack thereof. That is, you seem to think that sex is a form of action that lacks consequences that are either for or against a person’s life.
I believe you are failing to see what I am driving at, perhaps you think I am completely incorrect. However I will attempt to iterate my position once again.
Actions in and of themselves can be neutral. No one can possible say “sex is bad” or “sex is good” in a uniform blanket statement. Due to situations or considerations attached to the action that make the act of sex good or bad. Therefore my position is the act itself is neutral.
You seem to think it trivial that there is such a thing as “neutral actions.” I’m baffled by this position because, you see, I view all acts as either for or against one’s life, from the most trivial of all acts to the most complex; from the way I sit in my chair while typing this post, to the way I express myself to the people whom are dear to me, all these things have consequences. Perhaps you think there is no difference between living organisms and inanimate matter? Perhaps you do not understand that the existence of living organisms is contingent upon self-generated, self-sustained action? Perhaps the whole concept of life vs. death alludes you? So, care to elaborate on your theory of “neutral actions?”
I will not debate that our actions have consequences. However our actions are constantly being put through a stream of hurdles or situational events. These contingencies will often modify the actions result in a positive or negative fashion.
I hardly believe the concept of life vs death is is elusive to me. I understand it fully. I’m just challenging your idea that sex has a good or bad connotation attached to the act of it.
I’d also still like to see how you feel sex itself bad or good in every situation.
I’m sorry if you find me frustrating, but i’m an intelligent individual. If you would guide me to your way of thinking I might adopt it.
Felipe isn’t suggesting that sex, outside of context, is always good or always bad. What he is saying that it must always be either good or bad, depending on that context.
Therefore my position is the act itself is neutral.
I’d also still like to see how you feel sex itself bad or good in every situation.
Can you give a contextual example of a neutral sex act? By that I mean a sex act which has absolutely no positive or negative impact on your life or anyone elses.
Actions in and of themselves can be neutral. No one can possible say “sex is bad” or “sex is good” in a uniform blanket statement. Due to situations or considerations attached to the action that make the act of sex good or bad. Therefore my position is the act itself is neutral.
I don’t understand what this means. What are “actions in themselves?” Actions are actions of entities, and every action of an entity has a consequence, and the consequence is either for or against the entity, as determined by the nature of the entity. What part of this reasoning is confusing? If none, then by this line of thought, sex consists of a particular action of an entity, and this action can have good or bad consequences.
Actions, per se, aren’t entities whom we are judging as good or bad. Is that what you’re trying to say? No one treats actions as entities that are to be judged as good or bad. When we say such-and-such act was good or bad, we mean that the consequences of such-and-such act lead to a good or bad result for the entity in question. Further, if the entity knew full well that the act it took would lead to a bad consequence, then we call the entity immoral for doing it, while we call it moral if it did it knowing it would lead to a good consequence. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the entity in question is irrelevent as to whether the act the entity takes results in a good consequence or a bad consequence. Every action is an an action of an entity with consequences for that entity. Sex, as such, is always either good or bad for an entity, just as any other action is either good or bad for it.
Perhaps you think sex is like non-living entities whereby they are niether good or bad for man, per se? So for example, we don’t say things like “rocks are good for humans” without pointing to particular uses for rock and how they lead to good consequences. So, “rocks in themselves,” acontextually, aren’t good nor bad for humans, they just are. Rocks are rocks, and discussing good or bad requires a fuller context? But this would be insane since sex isn’t an entity and as such it’s impossible to discuss “sex in itself” as appart from the humans engaging it.
This is why I asked you to define what you thought sex was, but now I want to know, more broadly, what you think the genus “action” is. Do you view actions as floating concepts that aren’t good or bad, per se?
This is why I asked you to define what you thought sex was, but now I want to know, more broadly, what you think the genus “action” is. Do you view actions as floating concepts that aren’t good or bad, per se?
Yes.
Yes.
And how do you justify this divorcing of actions from entities that act? How can you talk about actions without talking about the entities that act?
Blank-out
Farrier, are you talking specifically about sex, not other actions, and saying that sex cannot be bad, regardless of context. I doubt you are, because in an earlier post, you mentioned that cheating may be good or may be bad, depending on the context.
If you’re speaking of action in general, I’m not sure what this thread is about. Of course walking can be good or bad. Killing can be good or bad. Sex can be good or bad. Any action can be good or bad. To judge if a particular act of walking, killing or sex is good or bad, we need to know more about the context (i.e. the surrounding circumstances). Farrier, are you disputing this? Or, when you say “I don’t know if killing is bad” is that your way of saying “killing is always good or bad, but I need to know more before I can tell if a particular killing is good or bad”.